Plenary, 16 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, January 16, 2003

Official Report 739KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to discuss. (S1F-2406)

I will meet the Prime Minister later this afternoon. We will discuss youth crime and violent crime and visit a police station in Edinburgh, where we will meet police officers who are in the front line of our fight against crime.

Will the First Minister say whether any minister asked for his permission, under section 8.7 of the Scottish ministerial code, to speak on a reserved issue in this morning's debate on Iraq?

No.

I am surprised by that answer because I remember the First Minister and other ministers applauding South Africa's President Mbeki in June 2001 when he told members that the Scottish Parliament has a duty to make known its views on what is happening throughout the world. Assuming that the First Minister holds to that position, why did not he or any of his ministers take part in this morning's important debate?

As decision making on the matter that was under discussion is reserved to the Westminster Parliament, it was right and proper that the Executive did not have an agreed line. The two political parties that are in partnership in the Executive have distinctive positions on the issue at Westminster—they have better positions than some other parties. Those distinctive positions were expressed clearly in this morning's debate, which was good for the Parliament.

Does not the First Minister believe that it would have been better for the Parliament if Scotland's political leadership—in the form of the First Minister—had taken part in the debate, which was an important debate and which was held on behalf of the people of Scotland? I ask him to do one thing on behalf of many members when he meets the Prime Minister this afternoon: will he convey to the Prime Minister the widespread opposition of people in Scotland to military intervention in Iraq without clear evidence and a new United Nations resolution?

The topic is serious. This morning's debate was largely serious and was well handled by those involved. The topic requires consistency and a serious approach from political leaders. However, on "Newsnight" on Monday night, I heard Mr Swinney say on the one hand that it was a matter of enormous regret that the Prime Minister had not given his absolute commitment to follow the direction of the United Nations but, on the other hand, that Mr Swinney would have to be persuaded by the evidence that the United Nations took in reaching a unanimous decision before he would support that decision. Political leadership is about consistency, honesty and clear direction. The Scottish National Party's contribution in this morning's debate would have been much more credible if those statements had been consistent.

While not wishing to pre-empt the inquiry into the tragic death in Inverness of little Danielle Reid, whom her school believed to have moved to Manchester, I ask the First Minister to discuss with the Prime Minister whether guidance to schools should be put in place throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that when a child leaves one school for another, the receiving school must conform to a tight time scale for informing the other of the child's safe arrival. That would mean that the authorities would quickly be made aware of the circumstances when the school that the child has left receives no word.

I am happy to give Maureen Macmillan an undertaking that I will discuss that matter with the Prime Minister. I also assure her that Cathy Jamieson will discuss the matter with Charles Clarke, to whom I spoke on the telephone last night. During our conversation, I told him that we wished to discuss a number of outstanding matters with him.

I know that this is not necessarily the reason for what happened in the Danielle Reid case, but there is an issue about professional boundaries, the sharing of information and working together in the child protection system and children's services throughout Scotland and perhaps beyond. It is essential in modern Scotland that we put professional boundaries aside and that professional workers in the public sector work together in children's interests. No vulnerable child in Scotland should be allowed to fall through the safety net.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2401)

The Cabinet will meet next Wednesday and will discuss important issues including health.

Perhaps the Cabinet might also wish to discuss the First Minister's speech on public services, which he made on Monday in East Kilbride. He said:

"I will make the changes to tackle poor performance – and I will not let vested interests prevent improvement".

Yet today we learn that the First Minister swiftly backed down in the face of a powerful vested interest by secretly abandoning his much-heralded plan to set up a performance improvement unit. The unit was supposed to be a team of outside experts who would improve the delivery of our public services, but it never came to pass. Does not that show that, despite all the First Minister's talk, his commitment to genuine reform of our public services is only skin deep and that he will always take the path of least resistance in response to vested interests?

The point that was made in some of this morning's less accurate newspapers and by Mr McLetchie is untrue. Not only do we have experts from the private sector advising the Executive at the centre; we have external experts advising the Executive elsewhere. For example, they are working in the health department; in the development department, they are working on the Scottish passenger rail franchise and in other areas; in the finance and central services department, they are working on best value and public-private partnerships; in the education department, they are working on children's services, children's psychology and the teachers' agreement; and in the enterprise and lifelong learning department, they are working on higher education. As I promised in August, there are external experts working in a range of different areas of the Scottish Executive who are making a difference with their advice, and there will be more.

My commitment to reform in the public sector is absolute, and I advise Mr McLetchie that my approach will be not to privatise but to reform. The reforms in tackling crime and in improving education and health are all now making an impact.

That is not what the First Minister said in August, as he well knows. Where is this voluntary body that is going to be private-sector led? Who is the chair of it, who is supposed to be from the private sector? Where is the cohesive unit that the Executive's spokesman was trumpeting at that time? The idea lasted about three minutes—not much longer than one of the First Minister's soundbites.

Given the miserable failure to produce the coherent unit that was supposed to transform public services, perhaps when you meet the Prime Minister, you might also explain to him why you have no plans to follow any of the decentralising reforms that are being implemented by him and by colleagues down south; no plans to introduce foundation hospitals in Scotland; and no plans to increase the number of specialist schools to which our parents and pupils will have access. Is not all that lack of reform simply because the public service reforms that we badly need in Scotland come a very poor second to your own self-serving interests as a dithering First Minister?

There were rather too many yous in that question.

Presiding Officer, I will try not to say "you", in deference to Mr Gallie.

There is an important dividing line in this chamber. The members of the partnership parties are absolutely committed to investment and reform in our public services. I am committed to that and I expect to see through our programme and to expand and develop it. That is in direct opposition to the policies of both Opposition parties.

Mr McLetchie said this week that I was

"unprepared to abolish the comprehensive systems of health and education which fail the most vulnerable in society the most."

That implies that he is prepared to

"abolish the comprehensive systems of health and education".

That may be the policy of the Scottish Conservatives, but I assure him that it is not the policy of the Executive partnership.

When we introduce reforms in our criminal justice system, our health service and our schools, they are designed to improve the opportunities that exist in Scotland, not to run them down. That policy of the Scottish Conservative party should be withdrawn.

I do not know where the First Minister got that quotation from, as I do not recall saying that.

I can tell the First Minister—[Interruption.]

Order.

I can tell the First Minister that the Conservatives are committed to abolishing the comprehensively failing systems over which he presides and to putting in their place comprehensive reforms that will deliver better value for the taxpayer and better service for the people who use the services.

The press release of 14 January 2003, which was probably out of date before I even made the speech, says that I am

"unprepared to abolish the comprehensive systems of health and education".

I have added no words and none were taken away.

That is not the policy of the partnership Executive. Our commitment to the criminal justice system is not only to increase the resources of the Crown Office by more than 25 per cent in the next three years but to make reforms throughout the system that will deliver more convictions and prosecutions more speedily.

Not only are we committed to the biggest-ever increase in health expenditure that Scotland has seen but we will ensure that the health service delivers on that expenditure. Not only are we committed to the highest-ever level of education expenditure that Scotland has seen but we are committed to back that investment with reforms. Reform is taking place in our schools at the moment; it is driving up attainment and standards. That is what government in Scotland should be about; it should not be about abolishing comprehensive health or education.

---

Schools (Violence against Teachers)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive is doing to tackle the issue of violence against teachers in schools. (S1F-2412)

Excellent schools have first-class standards of behaviour and discipline. That is why we are investing in more staff and more facilities and in action to improve school ethos and school discipline.

Does the First Minister agree that attacks on public employees must not be tolerated? Whether those attacks are made on police officers, firefighters, teachers, national health service staff or anybody else, such behaviour needs to be tackled at the earliest possible stage. Does the Executive have plans for tougher action, including police involvement or more effective exclusion policies, to deal with disruptive or violent youngsters who are still school pupils?

The question involves two separate, but possibly related, issues. On the first point, I want to make absolutely clear, as I have done before in the chamber, my abhorrence of attacks on those who work in our public services, whether those attacks are made in accident and emergency units in our hospitals, or in our courts, police stations or schools. We must take all the action that we can to secure a reduction in those violent attacks.

We need to know where the attacks are taking place. Statistics show an increase in the recorded incidence of violence in our schools, but that is precisely because we have made the effort to ensure that we have recorded the attacks accurately.

We need to ensure that discipline in our schools gets better and better, year on year. I want to make it absolutely clear to the chamber that a policy that says that we want to reduce the need for exclusions in schools is not the same as a target for reducing exclusions where they are needed or appropriate. In situations in which children have to be taken out of a classroom in order for the rest of the class to learn properly, they should be taken out of the classroom. I do not want there to be any doubt in any of Scotland's schools that that is what I am saying to them in the chamber today.

---

Cities Review

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive proposes to take following the cities review. (S1F-2403)

Successful cities in Scotland are vital for economic growth and better opportunities. A new ministerial group will take forward the action outlined in our response to the cities review. A dedicated team of officials will support the cities in developing city visions and shall soon contact each of the local authorities that serve the cities to take that work forward in partnership with public and private partners in each city region.

Is the First Minister aware that the cities review confirmed that funding patterns to support city infrastructure fall well short of needs, not least in Glasgow, as a result of land contamination, transport problems and economic development challenges? Does the Executive intend in future years to build on the welcome, but fairly modest, new moneys that it announced? Will he find ways of enhancing vital capital resources and utilising at least part of the £83 million surplus that is contributed by Glasgow's business rates to local government funding to help to deal effectively with the issues?

I am absolutely determined to deal with those issues effectively. We will do that partly through the city growth fund, which was announced last week. We will also do so by abolishing the controls on local authority capital borrowing. That critical change gives local authorities the right to invest what they can afford in their local infrastructure. We will also do that through the partial or full funding of major transport improvements, which will involve local authorities and the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive.

The most successful way in which we will deal with the issues is by ensuring that there is a plan and a strategy in each city in Scotland that will take the city forward, recognising its metropolitan status and the way in which it serves its surrounding area through jobs and social and recreational opportunities. If we get those strategies in place and back them up, we can make our cities generators for economic growth.

Is it not the case that, while any additional resources for Glasgow are welcome, those resources, over three years, represent less than 1 per cent of the city's annual budget and are a mere fraction of the £330 million in aggregate external finance that has been cut from Glasgow since new Labour came to power? Does the First Minister agree with The Herald editorial of 9 January, which said that the review

"seems to have avoided or fudged all the hard choices, potentially leaving the neediest further behind"

or the Evening Times editorial of 12 December that said that

"the Cities' Review is essentially a non-event, a total turkey which holds no real cheer for Glasgow"?

Or with the Edinburgh Evening News editorial that said that Glasgow got everything and Edinburgh got nothing?

Hear, hear.

Indeed, Margo MacDonald's column—which is in the Sunday Post, I believe—said something similar.

Whenever a programme of work is announced that covers Scotland's six cities, each city will say that it wishes that it had had a greater share of the pot. That is only natural.

What is important is that the additional money that has been allocated is used well and that we arrive at a strategy and a vision for each city. The issue is not just about more money—more money is going into public services in Scotland's cities now than has ever gone into them before. There is more money for transport, education, health, infrastructure and quality-of-life improvements in Scotland's cities than ever before, but there must be proper, locally drawn-up strategies that the Executive can support and which will ensure that our cities can provide the necessary boost for their surrounding regions. Carping about money will not solve the cities' problems; putting in place a vision and backing it up will.

Is the First Minister aware of the deep disappointment and anger felt by myself and other elected and non-elected representatives of Dundee due to the fact that the cities review did not address the important issues identified as contributing to Dundee's structural problems, particularly the effect of Dundee's gerrymandered boundaries? Does he accept that the question that Andrew Welsh asked earlier gives an indication of the problems involved in the drawing up of regional plans? Will he agree to an urgent meeting to discuss the way forward for Dundee?

It is important to note that, as a result of the city growth fund and the vacant and derelict land fund, Dundee's financial allocation was more per head than the other cities received.

I do not believe that the solution to the problems in Dundee, at least in the short or medium term, is to amend the city boundaries. That would delay improvements and would distract people's attention from the real issue, which is to do with getting in place the right strategy for the city and the region.

It is important that the authorities that benefit from economic growth in the city of Dundee—including Perth and Kinross, Angus and Fife Councils—should support the infrastructural improvements that the city requires to ensure that both it and the wider area benefit in the years to come. I hope that, through ministerial intervention, we can ensure that that can happen. I am happy to agree to a meeting with Kate Maclean and her colleagues in order to achieve that.

---

Scottish Manufacturing Steering Group

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has for the future operation and membership of the Scottish manufacturing steering group in the light of recent developments. (S1F-2400)

The Scottish manufacturing steering group was recently re-established under the independent chairmanship of Dr Chris Masters. I look forward to receiving its report in the spring.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the words of Hugh Aitken, the vice-president of Sun Microsystems' operations in Europe and Asia Pacific, who resigned from the group last week. He said:

"I can't handle any more of these sessions. My head screams for a sense of urgency, a sense of change, a sense of innovation, a sense of what's best for Scotland."

In the light of yesterday's fairly disastrous results on manufacturing exports, which saw a drop of 25 per cent overall and a drop of 35 per cent in electronics exports, does the First Minister agree that the long-term strategy in "A Smart, Successful Scotland" now needs to be supplemented with short-term, urgent action to save our manufacturing industry from total destruction?

Committee meetings regularly make my head scream, too, so I am not surprised that others feel the same way. However, being in the chamber never makes my head scream.

There are two things to say. The situation in electronics in particular—but also the decline in manufacturing exports over the year—was and remains serious, and we need serious solutions to address it. However, it is also important that we do not allow ourselves to slip into assuming that the situation is therefore absolutely catastrophic for the whole of Scottish industry and the Scottish economy.

In the disappointing figures that came out this week there was also good news in chemicals, metals and other areas. Many of the engineers who previously worked in manufacturing are now selling their services abroad in a way that is just as positive for the Scottish economy and for links abroad as manufacturing exports and engineering ever were. We need to ensure that we get the right balance between comment and action on the figures and, at the same time, that we do not talk Scotland down.

When I meet the electronics companies in Scotland that remain here and want not only to invest in this country but to export from it, they say to me, "Do not talk down the electronics industry in Scotland, because we want to stay here and we want to grow stronger." Let us strike the right balance and take the urgent action that is required, but let us also have a consistent, long-term strategy that can turn round the Scottish economy and help us to grow more quickly than we have done in the past.

Although we all agree with the First Minister that future strategies for manufacturing are absolutely essential, does he consider that specific measures are required now to address the disproportionate impact that manufacturing decline is having on communities such as my own in Greenock and Inverclyde?

Largely because of some of the specific measures that have been organised through the partnership action for continuing employment network and in other ways, the good news yesterday—alongside the disappointing news about exports—was that claimant count unemployment in Scotland had dropped below 100,000 for the first time in 28 years. That was a considerable good-news story for Scotland, and reflects the fact that even in the worst year for the Scottish economy for a long time, unemployment in Scotland was retained at a stable rate and continues to decline. That shows the underlying strength of the Scottish economy. We need to build on that underlying strength in every area, including Inverclyde, to ensure that we can benefit in the years to come.

Scottish Engineering is a member of the Scottish manufacturing steering group. Peter Hughes, the chief executive of Scottish Engineering, is quoted in The Scotsman today saying, with reference to the Executive:

"They have failed to form a coherent environment policy, they have failed to form an integrated transport policy, and they have faffed about for two years on business rates, which are still higher than in England."

If the First Minister will not respond to the Conservatives, who have frequently expressed those sentiments in the chamber, how will he respond to Mr Hughes?

I have a lot of admiration for Mr Hughes, and I believe that Scottish Engineering does a very good job. I take his points very seriously, which is why in the Scottish budget for 2003-06 we have resolved to increase transport expenditure to a higher percentage of the Scottish budget than in previous years. We have also agreed to ensure that Scotland has investment in skills and education to ensure that we can benefit from the new kind of economy, of which we need to be a part. In addition, we have frozen business rates for next year in response to industry concern. Peter Hughes has been making those points to me for a long time. As First Minister, I believe that I have now responded.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order. I was pleased to see, Sir David, that you allowed John Swinney to put a question on the international situation to the First Minister, despite the fact that it is a reserved matter. However, I seem to recall a previous ruling from the chair that although we are allowed to debate reserved matters in this chamber, we are not allowed to put questions to Executive ministers on reserved matters, for which they have no responsibility. Will you please explain that inconsistency?

My recollection is that the substance of the question to the First Minister concerned who took part in this morning's debate. [Interruption.] Mr Swinney reminds me that the question was also about the ministerial code.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Do you have the latitude to extend First Minister's question time for another three minutes, which would allow question 6—a crucial question—to be answered? If the Army and its firefighters go to Iraq and the firemen go on strike, there will be no one to cover fires in this country. In view of that, can Phil Gallie's question be answered?

I sometimes use my latitude to extend a question that has begun before the half hour is up, as I did this afternoon. However, my latitude does not allow me to go beyond the business motion that the Parliament has agreed to, which says that the next debate should start at 3.30 pm. We are already five minutes late, so we must proceed to that debate.